The SEC meditates on The DAO: tracing the initial arc of cryptosecurities regulation

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 58-67
Author(s):  
Aegis Frumento ◽  
Stephanie Korenman
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Regulatory Principle ◽  
Securities Laws

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review the first two years of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) efforts to regulate cryptosecurities to assess the trends of that regulation. Design/methodology/approach The authors review the SEC’s official pronouncements and informal statements about, and its enforcement actions against participants in, various early experiments in cryptosecurities. Findings The SEC has been evolving how to apply the US securities laws to cryptosecurities since its report on The DAO two years ago. When “coins” on a blockchain meet the traditional Howey Test, it is easy to categorize them as “securities.” However, the bedrock regulatory principle that some person must account for violations is frustrated by automated blockchain transactions, where no human is in control. This tension risks a “moral crumple zone” arising around cryptosecurities, in which persons might become liable for violations that they cannot fairly be said to have caused. Originality/value This paper provides valuable information and insights about the beginnings of US regulation of cryptosecurities and how the evolution of that regulation is trending after two years.

SEC charges “ICO Superstore” as unregistered broker-dealer

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-43
Author(s):  
John J. Sikora Jr. ◽  
Stephen P. Wink ◽  
Douglas K. Yatter ◽  
Naim Culhaci
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Securities Laws ◽  
Enforcement Activity

Purpose To analyze the settled order of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against TokenLot LLC (TokenLot), which was the SEC’s first action charging a seller of digital tokens as an unregistered broker-dealer. Design/methodology/approach Analyzes the SEC’s order within the context of other recent actions by the SEC on cryptocurrencies and digital tokens and discusses future implications of the order in this area. Findings The SEC’s order against TokenLot as an unregistered broker-dealer was a logical next step in its enforcement activity in the cryptocurrency and digital token space.The order demonstrates that the SEC expects firms in the cryptocurrency space to use the well-established constructs of federal securities laws to evaluate their business activities to ensure those activities are legally compliant. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers analyzing recent developments in a nascent area of SEC enforcement.

SEC focuses on initial coin offerings: tokens may be securities under federal securities laws

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-14
Author(s):  
Jeremy I. Senderowicz ◽  
K. Susan Grafton ◽  
Timothy Spangler ◽  
Kristopher D. Brown ◽  
Andrew J. Schaffer
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Securities Laws ◽  
Initial Coin Offerings

Purpose To explain the recent determination by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with respect to so-called “token sales” or “initial coin offerings” (ICOs) that some tokens may be securities under federal securities laws and to address other recent actions by the SEC with respect to ICOs. Design/methodology/approach Reviews the SEC’s determination that some tokens issued in an ICO may be securities under federal securities laws as outlined by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement in a “Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO.” Provides overview of SEC Investor Alert, Investor Bulletin, and recent comments and actions of the Staff regarding investment in ICOs and provides guidance to those interested in participating in an ICO as an investor or issuer. Findings These actions by the SEC make it clear that the SEC is closely monitoring the market for ICOs, and that it wants potential investors and issuers to be aware that it is watching and may take action if it believes the securities laws have been violated. Originality/value Practical overview of recent developments and guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

SEC credits self-reporting and cooperation in not imposing penalty on ICO sponsor

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-15
Author(s):  
Daniel Hawke
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Securities Laws ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Civil Penalty ◽  
Do So

Purpose To explain a February 20, 2019 US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settled enforcement action against Gladius Network LLC for failing to register an initial coin offering (ICO) under the federal securities laws, in which Gladius was able to avoid a civil penalty by self-reporting the violation and cooperating with the SEC enforcement staff. Design/methodology/approach Explains Gladius’ self-reporting, cooperation and remedial steps; why the SEC imposed no civil penalty on Gladius; and two similar cases the SEC instituted in July 2018 against companies that conducted unregistered ICOs, did not self-report, and were penalized. Provides analysis and conclusions. Findings The Gladius case offers important insight into how the SEC and its staff think about cooperation credit in resolving SEC enforcement actions and sends a clear message that self-reporting to the SEC can result in meaningful cooperation credit. In three recent cases, the Commission has made clear that once it put the industry on notice that ICOs could be securities that must be registered under the federal securities laws, a party risks enforcement action by failing to do so. Originality/value Expert analysis and guidance from an experienced securities lawyer who counsels clients on all manner of SEC enforcement, examination and regulatory policy matters.

Bringing order to non-GAAP financial measures: SEC sues to enforce “equal-or-greater-prominence” requirement

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 51-57
Author(s):  
Richard J. Parrino
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Financial Measures ◽  
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Accounting Principles ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Us ◽  
Earnings Releases

Purpose This article examines the first action by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce the “equal-or-greater-prominence” requirement of its rules governing the presentation by SEC-reporting companies, in their SEC filings and earnings releases, of financial measures not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Design/methodology/approach This article provides an in-depth analysis of the equal-or-greater-prominence rule and the SEC’s enforcement posture in the context of the SEC’s concern that some companies present non-GAAP financial measures in a manner that inappropriately gives the non-GAAP measures greater authority than the comparable GAAP financial measures. Findings Although the appropriate use of non-GAAP financial measures can enhance investor understanding of a company’s business and operating results, investors could be misled about the company’s GAAP results by disclosures that unduly highlight non-GAAP measures. The SEC’s enforcement action signals a focus on the manner in which companies present non-GAAP financial measures as well as on how they calculate the measures. Originality/value This article provides expert guidance on a major SEC disclosure requirement from an experienced securities lawyer.

Parties push to enforce statutory time limits on SEC enforcement actions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 30-32
Author(s):  
Benjamin Neaderland ◽  
Jared Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Securities Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose – To alert companies and individuals subject to regulation and investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of potential arguments to enforce time limits on enforcement actions that have heretofore commonly been ignored. Design/methodology/approach – Analyzes two cases - one recently decided and one pending - in US Courts of Appeals, explains significance of issues at stake. Findings – The Courts of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit has recently reviewed, and the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will soon decide whether statutory timing provisions effectively remove SEC power to bring enforcement actions past their deadlines, at least in some circumstances. Practical implications – Depending on the outcomes of the cases, companies and individuals may gain a new procedural defense or two against SEC enforcement actions. They may also expect the SEC to respond by more actively seeking tolling agreements, and/or being more cautious in issuing Wells notices. Originality/value – Guidance based on pending decisions interpreting US securities law, may bring regulatory adjustments to agency practice and procedure.

A review of the SEC Participating Affiliate No-Action Letters’ relief from Investment Advisers Act of 1940 registration for foreign investment advisers

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 22-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy E. Cohen ◽  
David Y. Dickstein ◽  
Christian B. Hennion ◽  
Richard D. Marshall ◽  
Allison C. Yacker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Information Update ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers

Purpose To explain the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) staff’s (the “Staff”) participating affiliate exemption from investment adviser registration for foreign advisers set forth in a line of Staff no-action letters issued between 1992 and 2005 (the “Participating Affiliate Letters”) and to discuss recent guidance issued by the Staff in an information update published in March 2017 (the “Information Update”) with respect to complying with requirements of the Participating Affiliate Letters. Design/methodology/approach Reviews the development of the Staff’s approach regarding the non-registration of foreign advisers that rely on the Participating Affiliate Letters from prior to the issuance of those letters through the Information Update and sets forth recommendations for registered investment advisers and their participating affiliates. Findings While there are arguments that the Information Update goes beyond restating established standards and does not clearly explain whether submission of all listed documentation is required, the Information Update will likely standardize the information submitted to the SEC. Originality/value Practical guidance for advisers relying on the Participating Affiliate Letters from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

SEC approves amendment to FINRA IPO allocation rule 5131, easing compliance for fund investors

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles S. Gittleman ◽  
Russell D. Sacks ◽  
Jennifer D. Morton
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Allocation Rule ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to describe the recent amendments to FINRA's IPO Allocation Rule that were approved by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a description of the IPO Allocation Rule and its operation, followed by a description of the IPO Allocation Rule amendments recently amended. Findings – On November 27, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved a change to FINRA's IPO allocation rule 5131 (the “amendment”). The amendment allows a fund of funds or other collective investment account that is investing in an IPO to rely on a written representation from an unaffiliated private fund investor that does not look through to its beneficial owners, provided that such unaffiliated private fund is managed by an investment adviser, has assets greater than $50 million, and meets certain other indicia of independence that are described. Originality/value – The paper provides practical guidance from experienced regulatory lawyers regarding an amendment to an important rule governing IPO sales and allocation practices.

SEC’s disclosure effectiveness initiative reshapes MD&A disclosure requirements

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Parrino
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Information ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
Financial Condition ◽  
Disclosure Requirements ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Us ◽  
Financial Disclosures

Purpose This article examines rule amendments issued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in November 2020, as part of the SEC’s ongoing “disclosure effectiveness initiative”, that revise in significant respects the requirements for financial disclosures presented in SEC filings as Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. Design/methodology/approach This article provides an in-depth analysis of the rule amendments in the context of contrasting perspectives expressed by the SEC, individual SEC Commissioners who dissented from adoption of the amendments, and market participants regarding the merits of the SEC’s movement away from prescriptive disclosure requirements towards a more principles-based approach to disclosure. Findings Although the SEC’s rules have long reflected a mix of principles-based and prescriptive disclosure elements, the principles-based emphasis in this latest stage of the SEC’s disclosure modernization project accords the managements of filing companies greater latitude to determine whether financial information is material to investors and how such information should be presented. Originality/value This article provides expert guidance on a major new SEC disclosure development from an experienced securities lawyer.

Heightened supervision of branch offices

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 18-21
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Nathan ◽  
Lauren Navarro ◽  
Kevin Matta
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
National Examination ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
The Us ◽  
Branch Office ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose – To explain expectations of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as to what constitutes successful branch inspection programs for broker-dealers. Design/methodology/approach – Summarizes FINRA’s rules requiring firms to implement branch inspection programs; examines the SEC’s and FINRA’s joint 2011 National Examination Risk Alert, which expanded upon FINRA’s rules, requiring firms to conduct risk-based analyses on each branch office to determine the appropriate frequency, intensity, and focus of inspections; discusses FINRA’s expectation that firms examine their registered representatives’ financial circumstances to reduce the risk of fraud; explains how FINRA’s Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System may impact branch inspections; and recommends several sources that firms should review when implementing a successful branch inspection program. Findings – Regulators have heightened their expectations as to what constitutes successful branch inspection programs for broker-dealers. Practical implications – To avoid regulatory intervention and discipline, firms should continue to review their policies and procedures to ensure that their programs are sufficiently comprehensive. Originality/value – This article will encourage firms with branch offices to review their branch inspection programs, and assist those firms in implementing sufficiently comprehensive policies and procedures.

No more bullsh*t: securities opinions after Omnicare

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 6-13
Author(s):  
Aegis Frumento ◽  
Stephanie Korenman
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Pension Fund ◽  
Content Type ◽  
District Council ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Securities Laws

Purpose – To review and analyze the implications for rendering opinions in connection with the sale of securities in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Omnicare, Inc. et al. v. Laborers District Council Constr. Ind. Pension Fund, et al. Design/methodology/approach – Analyzes the Omnicare holding and dissent in light of past practices and decisions and discusses how the case changes the risks of liability for rendering opinions in registration statements, and by necessary implication in other contexts where the securities laws proscribe either the statement of untrue “facts” or, by omissions, the making of misleading “statements.” Findings – Omnicare opens issuers and securities professionals to liability for rendering opinions that are not reasonably based in facts and rationality. Because the measure of such reasonableness depends on the reasonable investor, makers of opinions will need to take more matters into consideration in rendering opinions than they might have previously, when the only test of an opinion was whether it was genuinely believed by its maker. This creates a number of unresolved issues, but it also suggests that prudence will dictate more detailed disclosure and documentation of the bases of opinions than has been thought necessary until now. Originality/value – Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document